Some people argue that keeping Luongo is a waste of cap space even if it means dumping him for scraps. I argue the same with respect to Ballard. I'd rather have another centre that can fill in until Kesler gets back. I'd rather have a poor man's right sided D'man that could play 3 pairing and allow Tanev to move up to 2nd pairing.

There has to be something else going on cause I don't see it. Garrison has been no better this season, if fact not as reliable as Ballard thus far this season. Yet still with Garrison AV does not give him top line PP minutes. For the love of God if Edler ain't getting it done put Garrison back there.

This isn't the sky is falling rant. Its just from day one I do not think Ballard has been given a fair shake. So unless there are off ice issues we are not privy to I just don't get it. Now maybe Ballard is about to get traded and AV needs to see what Alberts has and what Barker has. I dunno.

As for Komisarek, the Komisarek that played for the Habs in the playoffs would be a welcomed addition to this team. A right handed shot and a mean SOB. He has his warts and has not lived up to his contract but I think he would look good with Edler. I like Ballard more don't get me wrong but at this point lets manage the asset.

Gee maybe Komisarek, Kadri and Bozack would not have been too bad after all.

Topper wrote:I have long suspected there is something with Ballard toeing the party line or practice work ethic that puts him in AV's doghouse. Recall his first season when he was scratched. The team statement was he wasn't healthy and a couple of days later Ballard says he's been a healthy scratch.

The Canucks do not air their laundry in public and the speculation takes on a life of its own. Something repeated often enough suddenly takes on the dimension of fact.

Maybe the buyout decision has been made and Vancouver wants him healthy.

That makes no sense though. After the Canadiens told Gomez not to report because they were going to buy him out the league ammended the buyout clause to allow for teams to exercise one of their buyouts this season in order to permit players who are going to be bought out from having to sit out and lose a full year of playing and practice time.

So if the decision has been made, then you have to think that Gillis, being the players GM that he tries to sell himself as, would make the decision and act upon it within 24 hours.

In this case though I can't see why Gillis wouldn't want to at least try and get something for him first. Why waste the money on a buyout when you could at least get a 3rd or 4th round pick for the guy and not have to spend the capital.

Who knows.....

If the team fails to at least make it to the conference finals this year one has to think there will be some pretty big changes at the draft and over the summer.

You can count me amongst those who are baffled and concerned with MGAV's treatment of Ballard. For someone who was a former player agent MG has allowed this to go on for too long. I fully admit I have heavily criticized Ballard in the past and rightfully so. But this past summer he really seemed to put his work hat on, found some chemistry with Tanev and has done quite well to date. They've easily been our most reliable pairing this season while Special-Edler was screwing up and Hammer & Juice looked more like Bert & Ernie.

With Garrison here, the writing was on the wall the Ballard would be leaving at some point but his play, IMO hasn't warranted the treatment he has recieved. With no injury, no flu and no indication until recently (via HW's post about his agent talking to the Canucks), Ballard has done essentially the same thing as Lou (less the twitter account). Team first, humble, self-deprecating, play well, etc..etc. Its been noted on Team 1040 and I've heard it referred to amongst the talking heads on TSN and the like.

Assuming that this is a personality conflict between AV and Ballard, hopefully the Canucks can find a decent home for Ballard with another team and get a reasonable return at the same time.

After that, its likely time to start considering AV's servicability as coach of the Canucks. Just sayin....

Hockey Widow wrote:So unless there are off ice issues we are not privy to ..

Let us know what you find out.

Nada. My friends say they are mystified as well. So whatever it is there is no one from the Canucks talking. Much like the Rypien situation where even the players were very careful with what they said, they are not talking much about Ballard. Not suggesting it is the same situation just noting that my friends haven't even gotten the gossip from other players. And players love to gossip, especially after a few drinks.

Topper wrote:I have long suspected there is something with Ballard toeing the party line or practice work ethic that puts him in AV's doghouse. Recall his first season when he was scratched. The team statement was he wasn't healthy and a couple of days later Ballard says he's been a healthy scratch.

The Canucks do not air their laundry in public and the speculation takes on a life of its own. Something repeated often enough suddenly takes on the dimension of fact.

Maybe the buyout decision has been made and Vancouver wants him healthy.

That makes no sense though. After the Canadiens told Gomez not to report because they were going to buy him out the league ammended the buyout clause to allow for teams to exercise one of their buyouts this season in order to permit players who are going to be bought out from having to sit out and lose a full year of playing and practice time.

So if the decision has been made, then you have to think that Gillis, being the players GM that he tries to sell himself as, would make the decision and act upon it within 24 hours.

In this case though I can't see why Gillis wouldn't want to at least try and get something for him first. Why waste the money on a buyout when you could at least get a 3rd or 4th round pick for the guy and not have to spend the capital.

Who knows.....

If the team fails to at least make it to the conference finals this year one has to think there will be some pretty big changes at the draft and over the summer.

Is the decision to sit Ballard entirely AV's? If so, then it's hard to understand. AV I'm sure doesn't care about salary when making lineup decisions, so it's hard to believe he'd rather have Barker and Alberts in, instead of Ballard.

Only thing that makes sense is if MG has input into lineup decisions, and wanted to sit Ballard to see what Barker and Alberts can bring. Otherwise, this is a head scratcher.

Topper wrote:I have long suspected there is something with Ballard toeing the party line or practice work ethic that puts him in AV's doghouse. Recall his first season when he was scratched. The team statement was he wasn't healthy and a couple of days later Ballard says he's been a healthy scratch.

The Canucks do not air their laundry in public and the speculation takes on a life of its own. Something repeated often enough suddenly takes on the dimension of fact.

Maybe the buyout decision has been made and Vancouver wants him healthy.

That makes no sense though. After the Canadiens told Gomez not to report because they were going to buy him out the league ammended the buyout clause to allow for teams to exercise one of their buyouts this season in order to permit players who are going to be bought out from having to sit out and lose a full year of playing and practice time.

So if the decision has been made, then you have to think that Gillis, being the players GM that he tries to sell himself as, would make the decision and act upon it within 24 hours.

In this case though I can't see why Gillis wouldn't want to at least try and get something for him first. Why waste the money on a buyout when you could at least get a 3rd or 4th round pick for the guy and not have to spend the capital.

Who knows.....

If the team fails to at least make it to the conference finals this year one has to think there will be some pretty big changes at the draft and over the summer.

Even then the Rangers and Canadiens still have Redden and Gomez (respectively) on their cap - to the extent they would have if they'd waived those players and assigned them to the AHL - until the beginning of the originally planned buyout period anyways.

Those special buyouts were done solely as a courtesy to the players in question, their teams gained nothing by them.

dbr wrote:Even then the Rangers and Canadiens still have Redden and Gomez (respectively) on their cap - to the extent they would have if they'd waived those players and assigned them to the AHL - until the beginning of the originally planned buyout period anyways.

Those special buyouts were done solely as a courtesy to the players in question, their teams gained nothing by them.

It was done to prevent the PA from filing a grievance about teams forcing players to sit a whole season just so they could be bought out. So a courtesy yes in one respect but in another it was political.

It has been mentioned several times in this thread that the Ballard/Tanev pairing was our best pairing all season, and then AV goes ahead and breaks them up. Tanev has looked great and it could be that he was making Ballard look better than he is, but if that's the case then sitting him in the press box is certainly not the way to get the best value for him in a trade. IF anything Gillis should have told AV to keep the Ballard/Tanev pairing together and started shopping him.

I've never been on the "fire AV" bandwagon, but I really am starting to wonder if this team needs a bit of a shake up on the bench. The team is too inconsistent and decisions like these boggle the mind.

Check out today's article at Canucks Army by Thomas Drance about the Ballard mess. Very reasonable. Basically, he is saying that Ballard has made one too many bone-head defensive reads in the last games he played. Which added to many previous incidents of poor defensive judgment in his history with the Canucks. The one thing that the coaches insist upon is sound defense (especially if they have nothing else to offer!). Sure, this year, especially, all the D have been unreliable. But the coaches see or know the skill level that the other 5 D usually can perform at. So they are patient with them. Ballard doesn't have that luxury.

Believe it or not, Pierre McGuire said something today (on 1040) that rang true about Ballard. He affirmed that Ballard is one of those players whose good performance with poor teams (Phoenix and Florida) caused scouts to over-grade his skill level. When he moved to a good team like the Canucks, he was shown to be only an average player. He had lots more on "the book on Ballard", including the perception that Ballard, unfortunately, never developed good "hockey sense". But everyone was in love with his skating! The comparison was made to Brett Hedigan - another great skater, but also a player with great "hockey smarts".

Like Manny, I think Ballard was given a chance to "prove" himself for the first part of this season. But, by "proving himself", he had to show that he was much better than "average", and, especially, that he had learned how to be reliable defensively. As everyone has seen for a while, no way are the Canucks going to keep a $4.2 mil 6th D. So, I would assume that the coaches and GMMG have decided that he is gone - either now or in the summer.

But, given that situation, what is AV going to do? Obviously, everyone in the organization knows Ballard is going, including him. In the meantime, AV and Bowness need to find a replacement for him as #6 D. So, they are giving those depth D guys a looksee. I imagine, by the way, that finding a quality, cheaper #6 is a tall order this season! They might be lucky, but, if they manage to pull off a trade (probably deadline), they may only get a 2nd tier prospect or a draft pick. The reality is that Ballard's trade value is low. And not much of that is the fault of the coaches, but, rather, that Ballard's true skill level was exposed when he came over to a top team!

I have never been much of a baltard fan. I will admit that he looked pretty good this season and I thought he turned a leaf with AV cuz he was playing consistently and Alberts/Barker never even got a sniff. I was really surprised he was scratched in back-to-back games and especially with Bieska out.

If we're not going to play him, we might as well just trade him (even if it's a pure salary dump). If he's not going to be a top 4 guy for us, he's too expensive and too small for the bottom pairing. I won't mind just letting Alberts, Barker and even Vandermeer battle for that #6th spot. Knowing Gillis, he might try to keep ballard for the season cuz he likes having depth, especially on D and with the shortened season. He can take his time in the offseason for a trade and find a suitable replacement.